Legal Pitfalls

Feilding Star, Volume XII, Issue 127, 18 April 1891, Page 3

Legal Pitfalls

1 AN EXPENSIVE; MISTAKE, A curious examiile of the unforeseen pilfalls that leud the attraction of uu<;eftaihty; even to .the most familiar aud well -be'ateii ''amongpt the devious paths of law, was T furnished, says the Sydney Daily -Telegraph of a recent date, by a case concluded in the Jury Court yesterday. Some time ago Messrs. J. Bridge and. Oo , haying a suiSill account of £5 5s or so against a Mr - Abraham Eat her. of Francis-street, Richmond, put it in the bauds of a solicitor for recovery. A writ was .■•accordingly issued- 'against Mr Eather and sorved upon him, and in dm> ■<p.ourse -judgment;. was -recovered ln deiauit of iippearauce. The plaintiffs then, in the ordinory way, issued ex■ecu :ionj an ii a sheriff's officdr, armed with a writ of Ji. -fa., proceeded "to Riciimoiid and levitsd upon the goods of Mr Abfaham Eather, of -Francis - street. This gentleman then commenced .an action against Messrs Bridge & . Co.-,, aud- their solio.ir.or, for trespass, and made it clear that the debtor against vwhom the process should have been .enforced, was another Mr Abraham JEather. (his son) living in the; same house. The : Judge told the jury that if the solicitor for the. ' creditors, by.';. ; endoriiDg.-on the \irrif ' the information that Mr Abraham Eather, the defendant lived, at Francis-street, -Richmond, had thereby misled the sheriff's officer into mistaking the man against whom, he was to enforce his writ, then both the creditors and their solicitor were liable for damages. •As he ?ilso informed the jury that when tin re were two persons of the same name the "bailiff , in the- absence- -of any indication to the contrary, _ was .bound to treat it as applying to. the elder, the jury had not; had much difficulty in finding that the officer had teen milled by ihe, endorsement. The result is tbat'Met-8r« Bridge and Co.'s fruitless attempt to collect a five- guinea bill has cost them and their solicitor £250, and the by no moans inconsiderable expense of a fciupreme Court action.